Search results for: nonviolence

Authors: Adi Levy

Abstract:

Military and security personnel defections during nonviolent resistance (NVR) campaigns are recognized as an effective way of undermining the regime’s power, but they also may generate moral dilemmas that contradict the moral standing of NVR tactics. NVR campaigns have been primarily praised for their adherence to moral and legal norms, yet some of NVR tactics raise serious ethical concerns. This paper focuses on NVR tactics that seek to promote defections and disobedience within military and security personnel to sustain their campaign. Academic literature regarding NVR tactics indicates that compared to violent forms of resistance, defections are more likely to occur when security forces confront nonviolent activists. Indeed, defections play a strategically fundamental role in nonviolent campaigns, particularly against authoritarian regimes, as it enables activists to undermine the regime’s central pillars of support. This study examines the events of the Arab Spring and discusses the ethical problems that arise in nonviolent activists’ promotion of defections and disobedience. The cases of Syria and Egypt suggest that the strategic promotion of defections and disobedience was significantly effective in sustaining the campaign. Yet, while such defections enhance nonviolent activists’ resilience, how they are promoted can be morally contentious and the consequences can be dire. Defections are encouraged by social, moral and emotional appeals that use the power disparities between unarmed civilians and powerful regimes to affect soldiers and security personnel’s process of decision-making. In what is commonly referred to as dilemma action, nonviolent activists deliberately entangle security forces in a moral dilemma that compels them to follow a moral code to protect unarmed civilians. In this way, activists sustain their struggle and even gain protection. Nonviolent activists are likely to be completely defeated when confronted with armed forces. Therefore they rely on the military and security personnel’s moral conscious of convincing them to refrain from using force against them. While this is effective, it also leaves soldiers and security forces exposed to the implications and punishments that might follow their disobedience or defection. As long as they remain nonviolent, activists enjoy civilian immunity despite using morally contentious tactics. But the severe implications brought upon defectors. As a result, demand a deep examination of this tactic’s moral permissibility and a discussion that assesses culpability for the moral implications of its application.

Keywords: culpability, defections, nonviolence, permissibility

Procedia PDF Downloads 88

Authors: Cetin Balanuye

Abstract:

The present study aims to accomplish two tasks: First, it critically reinterprets the actual relationship between democracy and the modern state in order to show that it is responsible for most of our current political problems and dilemmas. Second, it is argued that this relationship can be reimagined for better, and Spinozistic notions such as ‘conatus’, ‘power’ and ‘virtue’ are crucial in this pursuit. The significance of the present study lies in several interrelated observations: The world has never been a more heterogeneous place than today. People from different religious, cultural and historical backgrounds do equally have 'good reasons' to hold that their world views are the best ones. We have almost no authority to be respected equally by all these different world views. We no longer have gods at once we had in our ancient times. We have three big monotheistic religions, yet the God of which is significantly different from each other. The worse is that the believers of these religions do not seem eager to perform a duet, but rather tend to fight a duel with each other. Thanks to post-modernism, neither reason nor science is any longer seen as universally value-neutral guide to be employed in our search for a common ground. In sum, the question 'how should I live?' has never generated this much diversity before in terms of answers and the answers have never been this much away from a fairly objective evaluation. Our so-called liberal democracies are supposed to perform against this heterogenous, antagonistic and self-sustained web of discursive background. It is argued that our conception of 'State' with a weak emphasis on democracy is not a solution, if not itself the source of this topsy-turvy. Weak emphasis on democracy should be understood here as a kind of liberal democracy which operates in a partisan State, one which takes sides among rivals either for this or against that world view. This conception of State rests on a misleading understanding of the concept of power, and it is argued that it can only be corrected by means of a Spinoza-informed ontology of politics. The role of State in such an ontology is no longer a partisanship of any kind, nor is it representative of all-encompassing authority to favor any world view. State in this Spinozistic ontology equally encourages world views and their discursive practices to let them increase the power of acting and have more power to affect rules and regulations. World views can enhance every medium -in the sense of nonviolence ethology- to increase their power of acting. The more active a world view is, the more powerful and the more virtuous it is in terms of its effective power on the State. Though Spinoza has provided us with a limited guideline to understand what kind of democracy, he actually had in his mind, his ontology developed in Ethics is rich enough to imagine and inspire a better democratic practice to help us sustain the modern State in our extremely pluralistic contemporary societies.

Keywords: democracy, Islam, power, Spinoza

Procedia PDF Downloads 182